Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
No, the temperature steel melts at is not a constant. It depends on the alloys used to make the steel. However, this is a pointless discussion because the fire was in the 600 degree range, which is about half of what steel generally melts at. The steel didn't need to melt - it needed to be weakened.
|
Yes, agreed, and I was generalizing about the steel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The building was constructed so that if some of the supports failed, it would shift the load bearing to other columns. This means that is "one column" failed, it would still stand. But dozens of columns were destroyed by the impact, and many many more weakened by the fire. That was just the start.
|
Actually the core didn't have "dozens" of columns compromised. The only part/s of the plane that could have affected the core were the engines, and nowhere near "dozens" were compromised.
Regardless, no matter how many or how the structural supports were affected, the building should not or could not have fallen symmetrically - the symmetry is the week point of any argument, especially three times in one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
What most likely caused the building to collapse was the angle clips that held the floors in place - the joints that attached the floor to both the outer shell to the inner core. Once enough of these failed, one floor fell onto another floor.
|
"Most likely" and other suppositions are as convincing as demolition possibles without the science, which NIST was unable to provide...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
It's also possible that the outer box columns began to bow outward, leaving entire floors without support. In other words, the outer walls heated and expanded and moved outward, and the concrete floor - which did not expand - was pulled on until the joints holding it up failed.
|
Again, "possibles" and maybes and such isn't much stronger than truther theory, and much less credible than scientific analysis of powder remain (the thermate thing).
Regardless, you can't explain the multiple symmetry of all three first-time collapse occurences that day...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Can you show me a video of a building tipping over?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
One floor failed to have enough support, and it fell down. DOWN. It did not tip over, it fell down. That hit the floor below it, which also fell DOWN. And so on. It wouldn't have tipped over because everything was falling DOWN.
|
This would be fin if 20-tonne pieces of the WTC towers weren't flung 600 feet away.
Also, if your pile-driver theory were valid, why would it take so little time? What you're advocating is that somehow uncompromised floors reacted the same as compromized/weakened floors, and that the whole thing could have fallen in ten seconds instead of 100 or so seconds, if it took about one second per floor as it should have if the 9already discredited0 pancake theory were valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
That's incorrect. While there was a huge hole on the top of the towers where the plane impacted, every floor below it not affected was still in fact pressurized. All that air had to go someplace.
|
Ok so the lower floors were uncompromised, even still presurrized - so why did they fall or collapse so easily?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And this my problem with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is a logical explanation for everything that happened.
|
There is in fact not really a "logical explanation" for most of what happened, without new qustions arising each and every time. What bugs me about all this is the huge amount of unanswered questions, from the building construct to the family members who have simply been ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
But the big question is "why?". So we could attack Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a land locked country with no oil. Oh yeah, the pipeline? TEN YEARS later and that pipeline STILL ISN'T BUILT. I saw a new idea the other day saying that they did it because of asbestos. That was funny.
|
Well, back when the US was friends with the Taliban, they were needing security for the pipeline. Now with permanent bases they've gotten that security.
But Afghanistan was just a rehearsal for Iraq, and meant to look like they were hunting for bin Laden. Of course that's my conjecture and I could provide lots of links that refer to that,, but that doesn't have that much to do with the 9/11 attacks directly...
:D